Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

31 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,500 Mumbai1,197 Kolkata513 Jaipur349 Pune272 Bangalore269 Ahmedabad242 Surat176 Chennai169 Indore157 Hyderabad126 Karnataka112 Amritsar83 Chandigarh82 Ranchi74 Cuttack67 Raipur64 Rajkot61 Cochin60 Visakhapatnam58 Allahabad56 Lucknow31 Guwahati25 Nagpur24 Dehradun24 Agra24 Patna23 Kerala14 Jodhpur14 Panaji6 Jabalpur4 Telangana3 Varanasi3 Rajasthan2 Calcutta2 SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)110 Section 27451 Penalty28 Section 27122 Addition to Income17 Section 271F10 Natural Justice9 Section 1328 Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 266/LKW/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 267/LKW/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

8

28 Oct 2021

AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 269/LKW/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 268/LKW/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 270/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

RAJENDRA KUMAR AND COMPANY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company V. The Dy. Cit-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacfr6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 13/6/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Unsustainable In Law As The Ld. A.O. Has Not Mentioned Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Even When The Ld. A.O Has Not Mentioned The Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 274 R/W Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Ita No.584/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even when the Ld. A.O has not mentioned the specific charge in the Statutory Notice issued u/s 274

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

u/s 40a(ia) - Rs. 9,63,357/ iv. Interest on bank account - Rs. 20,413/- ITA No.181/LKW/2018 & C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 13 4. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount surrendered during assessment proceedings, by issuing notice dated 31.03.2016 under section 274

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PATHAK,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-2014

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty in the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, the penalty imposed is bad in law and be quashed

M/S. RISHA TOUR AND TRAVELS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 606/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Risha Tour & Travels V. Ito-2(3) 111/51, Ashok Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaofr5578C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law and be deleted. 6. Because the assessment has been framed rejecting the books of account and estimating the total income, there being no concealment, the penalty imposed is bad in law and be deleted. 2. The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

section 271(1)(c) by the Income Tax Officer, Sitapur. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “(1) That the penalty notice issued u/s 274

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 548/LKW/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 (accompanying the assessment order), penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not have been levied, much less upheld by the "CIT(A)". WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. BECAUSE "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in holding that "all facts were detected during the proceedings u/s

M/S J.S TOWER,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 570/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2012-13 M/S J.S. Tower, Vs. Acit-I, 16/80-I, Civil Lines, Kanpur Kanpur Pan Aadfj5437B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even when the Ld. A.O. not mentioned the specific charge in the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 274

INCOME TAX OFFICER -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S APS ACADEMY, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 470/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Smt. Alka Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

271(1)(a) of the Act. 10. Section 275 deals with bar of limitation for imposing penalty. Sub-section (1) of section 275 reads as under: “(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S APS ACADEMY, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 471/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Smt. Alka Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

271(1)(a) of the Act. 10. Section 275 deals with bar of limitation for imposing penalty. Sub-section (1) of section 275 reads as under: “(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals

THE SUB-REGISTRAR,HAMIRPUR vs. DI (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the aforesaid two different assessee's in ITA No

ITA 251/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar**

Section 246A(1)(q)Section 271Section 271FSection 274Section 285B

1) of the 1961 Act. First we, shall take up appeal of the assessee for assessment year 201516(financial year 2014-15). The Assessing Officer issued penalty notice u/s 271FA read with section 274,dated 19/01/2017 to the assessee as there was delay by assessee in filing of AIR information for the financial year 2014-15 , which was required

THE SUB- REGISTRAR,HAMIRPUR vs. DI (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the aforesaid two different assessee's in ITA No

ITA 250/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar**

Section 246A(1)(q)Section 271Section 271FSection 274Section 285B

1) of the 1961 Act. First we, shall take up appeal of the assessee for assessment year 201516(financial year 2014-15). The Assessing Officer issued penalty notice u/s 271FA read with section 274,dated 19/01/2017 to the assessee as there was delay by assessee in filing of AIR information for the financial year 2014-15 , which was required

PRIME PRODUCTS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) DATED 14/02/2020 IS VAGUE AND DEFECTIVE SINCE, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED. 4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) NFAC HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN EXPLANATION. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/LKW/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) whereby penalty proceedings are initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the particulars of income as is mandated by provisions of Section

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 568/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132BSection 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.8.2019, holding it to be time- barred by 836 days of limitation and no sufficient cause having been made out for condonation of the delay. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Challenging the order under